Supreme Court of Texas 

══════════

No. 22-0974 

══════════

J-W Power Company, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Sterling County Appraisal District, 

Respondent

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Petition for Review from the 

Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas 

═══════════════════════════════════════

~ consolidated with ~ 

══════════

No. 22-0975 

══════════

J-W Power Company, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Irion County Appraisal District, 

Respondent
2 

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Petition for Review from the 

Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas 

═══════════════════════════════════════

Argued February 20, 2024

JUSTICE BLACKLOCK delivered the opinion of the Court. 

Justice Young did not participate in the decision. 

Just as taxpayers must pay the property taxes lawfully assessed 

against them, appraisal districts have a corresponding obligation to 

ensure appraisals are accurate and comply strictly with the law. One 

way the law enforces the government’s obligation to impose only lawful 

taxes is section 25.25 of the Tax Code, which empowers taxpayers to 

demand that certain errors in the appraisal records be corrected by the 

county’s appraisal review board (ARB). TEX. TAX CODE § 25.25(c). J-W 

Power made such a demand in several counties. The appraisal districts 

responded that they had no obligation to consider J-W Power’s demand 

for correct appraisal records—even if J-W Power is right that the records 

are erroneous and subject to correction under section 25.25(c). We 

disagree with the appraisal districts and therefore reinstate the 

taxpayer’s section 25.25(c) motions. 

The Tax Code entitles a property owner aggrieved by actions of 

local tax-appraisal officials to protest those actions before the county’s 

ARB. See id. § 41.41. Separately, the Code also entitles property owners 

to ask the ARB to correct certain errors in the “appraisal roll,” which is 

what the statute calls the finalized appraisal records. See id. § 25.25(c). 
3 

Under either procedural avenue, taxpayers dissatisfied with the ARB’s 

decision may seek judicial review. Id. § 42.01(a)(1)(A), (B). 

This case asks what happens when a taxpayer loses a Chapter 41 

protest and then later brings a section 25.25(c) motion raising 

essentially the same complaint. Under the usual rules for civil 

litigation, successive actions on a subject matter previously litigated by 

the parties are generally barred by the ancient rule of res judicata. See

Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Daccach, 217 S.W.3d 430, 449 (Tex. 2007). 

Administrative proceedings before an ARB are not civil litigation, of 

course. The parties disagree in this Court over whether an ARB’s 

decision can ever have any res judicata effect at all, although that 

dispute was likely not preserved for this Court’s review. 

We need not resolve that dispute, however, because 

section 25.25(l) of the Tax Code eliminates any preclusive effect a prior 

Chapter 41 protest might otherwise be thought to have. It does so by 

authorizing taxpayers to bring section 25.25(c) motions “regardless of 

whether” they previously brought a Chapter 41 protest. In the words of 

section 25.25(l): 

A motion may be filed under Subsection (c) regardless of 

whether, for a tax year to which the motion relates, the 

owner of the property protested under Chapter 41 an action 

relating to the value of the property that is the subject of 

the motion. 

TEX. TAX CODE § 25.25(l). As explained below, this provision guarantees 

the taxpayer’s right to seek correction of the appraisal roll under 

section 25.25(c) whether or not—i.e., “regardless of whether”—there has 

already been a Chapter 41 protest. 
4 

The parties disagree over the extent to which this taxpayer’s 

unsuccessful Chapter 41 protest concerned “an action relating to the 

value of the property.” But as we read the statute, that question 

ultimately does not matter. The Tax Code authorizes the taxpayer to 

use section 25.25(c) “regardless of whether” there was a prior Chapter 41 

protest of “an action relating to the value of the property.” In other 

words, if there was such a protest, section 25.25(c) remains available. 

And if there was not such a protest, section 25.25(c) remains available. 

The effect of section 25.25(l) is to make section 25.25(c)’s remedies 

available to taxpayers without regard to the existence or subject matter 

of prior Chapter 41 protests about the property. Because the court of 

appeals held otherwise and dismissed the taxpayer’s section 25.25(c) 

claims based on res judicata, we reverse its judgments in these related 

cases and remand the cases for the court of appeals to consider 

arguments it did not reach. 

I. 

J-W Power Company leases, sells, and services natural gas 

compressors used in oil and gas operations. It maintains these 

compressors in many counties across Texas, and it often leases them to 

customers in neighboring counties. This case involves the taxation of 

compressors maintained in Ector County that were leased to customers 

in Sterling and Irion Counties.1 

1 This opinion addresses two petitions consolidated for briefing and 

argument, one involving Sterling County (No. 22-0974) and one involving Irion 

County (No. 22-0975). J-W Power has filed several other petitions stemming 

from similar suits against other appraisal districts. J-W Power Co. v. Frio 

Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 04-21-00564-CV, 2023 WL 3081772 (Tex. App.—San 
5 

Sections 23.1241 and 23.1242 of the Tax Code govern the 

appraisal of certain “heavy equipment” inventory, including J-W 

Power’s compressors. See id. §§ 23.1241, .1242. Prior to 2012, these 

provisions did not apply to leased equipment. EXLP Leasing, LLC v. 

Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist., 554 S.W.3d 572, 574 (Tex. 2018). At 

that time, J-W Power’s leased compressors were taxed in their county of 

destination, the place where they were being used by J-W Power’s 

customers. 

In 2011, the Legislature amended sections 23.1241 and 23.1242 

such that leased heavy equipment would now be taxed in its county of 

origin, where the dealer stores it when not in use.2 Id.; see TEX. TAX 

CODE §§ 23.1241(a), .1242. This Court’s 2018 decision in EXLP Leasing

clarified the meaning of these amendments and affirmed their 

constitutionality. 554 S.W.3d at 581–83. After the 2011 legislative 

amendments but before EXLP Leasing, the Sterling and Irion County 

Appraisal Districts continued to appraise J-W Power’s leased 

compressors located within their jurisdiction, rather than deferring to 

the county of origin. 

ARBs have various statutory functions, including the resolution 

of protests initiated by property owners. TEX. TAX CODE § 41.01(a). In 

Antonio Apr. 26, 2023, pet. filed); J-W Power Co. v. Jack Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 

No. 02-22-00082-CV, 2023 WL 415517 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 26, 2023, 

pet. filed); J-W Power Co. v. Henderson Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 12-22-00325-

CV, 2023 WL 4002733 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 14, 2023, pet. filed); J-W Power 

Co. v. Wise Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 02-22-00227-CV, 2023 WL 2325507 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth Mar. 2, 2023, pet. filed). 

2 Act of May 21, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 322, §§ 1–3, 2011 Tex. Gen. 

Laws 938, 938–41 (codified at TEX. TAX CODE §§ 23.1241, .1242). 
6 

the years between the 2011 Tax Code amendments and EXLP Leasing, 

J-W Power filed Chapter 41 protests with the Sterling County ARB for 

each year from 2013 to 2016. It did the same with the Irion County ARB 

for 2015 and 2016. J-W Power claimed that the 2011 amendments 

required its leased compressors to be taxed in their origin counties, 

rather than in Sterling and Irion Counties, their destination counties. 

The ARBs in both counties denied the protests. J-W Power did not seek 

judicial review. 

In December 2018, after this Court decided EXLP Leasing, J-W 

Power filed motions to correct the appraisal rolls under section 25.25(c) 

of the Tax Code. It argued, based on the statutory amendments and 

EXLP Leasing, that the appraisal rolls included “property that does not 

exist in the form or at the location described in the appraisal roll,” which, 

if true, would entitle J-W Power to a corrected appraisal roll. Id.

§ 25.25(c)(2), (3). The ARBs denied J-W Power’s motions, and J-W 

Power responded with these lawsuits. 

Both suits originated in the same district court, and throughout 

their history the lower courts have at times treated them as one 

consolidated matter, as do we. The appraisal districts moved for 

summary judgment, arguing among other things that res judicata 

barred the section 25.25(c) motions because those motions involved the 

same subject matter as the prior Chapter 41 protests. The districts also 

argued that J-W Power failed to exhaust its administrative remedies 

because it did not seek judicial review of the ARB orders denying its 

Chapter 41 protests. The district court granted summary judgment to 

the districts without explanation. 
7 

The court of appeals affirmed. It held that res judicata barred 

J-W Power’s section 25.25(c) motions, which raised “nearly verbatim” 

claims as compared to its prior Chapter 41 protests. 684 S.W.3d 480, 

486–88 (Tex. App.—Austin 2022); 684 S.W.3d 488, 494–96 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2022). J-W Power argued that section 25.25(l) overcame any res 

judicata effect its Chapter 41 protest may have had, but the court of 

appeals concluded that section 25.25(l) did not apply because J-W 

Power’s Chapter 41 protests concerned the improper categorization of its 

compressors, not their value. 684 S.W.3d at 486–87; 684 S.W.3d at 495. 

II. 

This case involves two separate statutory schemes authorizing 

property owners to seek changes to an appraisal district’s treatment of 

their properties: section 41.41 protests and section 25.25(c) motions. 

Generally, the property owner must lodge a section 41.41 protest no 

later than 30 days after receiving notice of the appraised value, or before 

May 15, whichever is later. TEX. TAX CODE § 41.44(a)(1). The Code lists 

several specific grounds for a section 41.41 protest, plus a catch-all 

provision. 

A property owner is entitled to protest before the appraisal 

review board the following actions: 

(1) determination of the appraised value of the 

owner’s property or, in the case of land appraised as 

provided by Subchapter C, D, E, or H, Chapter 23, 

determination of its appraised or market value; 

(2) unequal appraisal of the owner’s property; 

(3) inclusion of the owner’s property on the appraisal 

records; 

(4) denial to the property owner in whole or in part 

of a partial exemption; 

(4-a) determination that the owner’s property does 
8 

not qualify for the circuit breaker limitation on appraised 

value provided by Section 23.231; 

(5) determination that the owner’s land does not 

qualify for appraisal as provided by Subchapter C, D, E, or 

H, Chapter 23; 

(6) identification of the taxing units in which the 

owner’s property is taxable in the case of the appraisal 

district’s appraisal roll; 

(7) determination that the property owner is the 

owner of property; 

(8) a determination that a change in use of land 

appraised under Subchapter C, D, E, or H, Chapter 23, has 

occurred; or 

(9) any other action of the chief appraiser, appraisal 

district, or appraisal review board that applies to and 

adversely affects the property owner. 

Id. § 41.41(a). Once a protest is filed, the property owner is entitled to 

a hearing before the ARB. Id. § 41.45(a). The ARB must issue a written 

order deciding the protest. Id. § 41.47(a). An unsatisfied property owner 

may seek judicial review in district court. Id. § 42.01(a)(1)(A). 

Section 25.25(c) is another avenue, albeit more limited, by which 

a property owner can seek changes to an appraisal district’s treatment 

of his property. “By May 15 or as soon thereafter as practicable,” the 

chief appraiser must prepare and submit a completed appraisal record 

to the ARB for review. Id. §§ 25.01, .22. After the ARB has resolved 

pending protests and approved the appraisal records, the records 

“constitute the appraisal roll for the district.” Id. §§ 25.24, 41.12. 

Section 25.25(c) allows a property owner to ask the ARB to “correct” the 

appraisal roll for “any of the five preceding years.” Id. § 25.25(c). The 

grounds for a section 25.25(c) motion are as follows: 

(1) clerical errors that affect a property owner’s liability for 

a tax imposed in that tax year; 
9 

(2) multiple appraisals of a property in that tax year; 

(3) the inclusion of property that does not exist in the form 

or at the location described in the appraisal roll; or 

(4) an error in which property is shown as owned by a 

person who did not own the property on January 1 of that 

tax year. 

Id. § 25.25(c). As with Chapter 41 protests, “[a] property owner is 

entitled to appeal [to a district court] an order of the appraisal review 

board determining a motion filed under Section 25.25.” Id.

§ 42.01(a)(1)(B). 

III. 

The question presented is whether res judicata bars J-W Power’s 

section 25.25(c) motions because those motions raise essentially the 

same complaints as J-W Power’s prior, unsuccessful Chapter 41 

protests. The answer is no. 

J-W Power submitted its section 25.25(c) motions using forms 

provided by the appraisal districts. On those forms, J-W Power checked 

boxes indicating that its motions raised the grounds listed in 

section 25.25(c)(2) (“multiple appraisals”) and section 25.25(c)(3) 

(“inclusion of property that does not exist in the form or at the location 

described”). See id. § 25.25(c)(2), (3). In its Chapter 41 protests filed 

over several years, J-W Power named multiple grounds for its protests: 

“Property should not be taxed in this appraisal district,” “Should be 

assessed as Heavy Equipment Inventory,” “Value is over market value,” 

etc. We will assume for purposes of this opinion that the section 25.25(c) 

motions and the earlier Chapter 41 protests raise essentially the same 

legal and factual issues. 
10 

The court of appeals held that res judicata barred J-W Power’s 

section 25.25(c) motions. 684 S.W.3d at 486–88; 684 S.W.3d at 494–96. 

Res judicata, or claim preclusion, “bars lawsuits that arise out of the 

same subject matter as a prior suit when, with the use of diligence, that 

subject matter could have been litigated in the prior suit.” Eagle Oil & 

Gas Co. v. TRO-X, L.P., 619 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Tex. 2021). This venerable 

rule promotes judicial economy and helps maintain the stability and 

reliability of judgments. Id. In general, res judicata applies when there 

is: “(1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent 

jurisdiction; (2) identity of parties or those in privity with them; and (3) a 

second action based on the same claims as were raised or could have 

been raised in the first action.” Rosetta Res. Operating, LP v. Martin, 

645 S.W.3d 212, 225 (Tex. 2022) (quoting Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 

919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996)). 

As an initial matter, amicus curiae Texas Taxpayers and 

Research Association contends that the outcome of an ARB proceeding 

can never have res judicata effect because, among other reasons, the 

outcome does not yield a “final judgment on the merits by a court of 

competent jurisdiction.” See id. J-W Power adopts this argument in its 

reply brief in this Court. It did not make this argument in the lower 

courts, however. To the contrary, it specifically disclaimed the 

argument in the court of appeals. We need not resolve the question, 

which we consider an open one, because we agree with J-W Power’s 

argument that section 25.25(l) of the Tax Code preserved its right to file 

a section 25.25(c) motion notwithstanding its prior Chapter 41 protests. 

J-W Power advanced its view of section 25.25(l) consistently in the lower 
11 

courts. Unlike the broader question of whether res judicata can ever 

attach to ARB proceedings, there is no doubt that the narrower question 

of section 25.25(l)’s meaning has been properly preserved for our review. 

Apart from the section 25.25(l) question, the parties also disagree 

over whether the third element of res judicata is satisfied here. The 

appraisal districts maintain that J-W Power’s section 25.25(c) motions 

were based on the same claims raised by its earlier, unsuccessful 

Chapter 41 protests. J-W Power responds that its Chapter 41 protests 

and section 25.25(c) motions address separate injuries and that the 

section 25.25(c) motions could not have been brought at the time of its 

Chapter 41 protests because appraisal rolls only come into existence 

after the protests have been heard. 

We will assume, without deciding, that res judicata would 

otherwise bar J-W Power’s section 25.25(c) motions because they seek to 

relitigate subjects covered by its Chapter 41 protests. We therefore 

confront J-W Power’s argument that section 25.25(l) prevents the 

application of res judicata to its section 25.25(c) motions. We agree with 

J-W Power on this point, for the following reasons. 

Section 25.25(l) provides: 

A motion may be filed under Subsection (c) regardless of 

whether, for a tax year to which the motion relates, the 

owner of the property protested under Chapter 41 an action 

relating to the value of the property that is the subject of 

the motion. 

TEX. TAX CODE § 25.25(l). The parties agree that this provision 

guarantees a property owner’s right to file a section 25.25(c) motion in 

some instances where a prior Chapter 41 protest might be seen as a 

roadblock. The dispute is over the breadth of subsection (l)’s protection 
12 

for later section 25.25(c) motions. 

In debating the breadth of section 25.25(l), the parties emphasize 

the second half of the provision, particularly the words “relating to the 

value of the property.” Understandably so, as the court of appeals 

hinged its decision on that portion of the statute. See 684 S.W.3d at 

486–87; 684 S.W.3d at 495. J-W Power maintains that its Chapter 41 

protests “relat[ed] to the value of the property.” Some of its protests 

directly contested the property’s value, it contends. Others, while they 

challenge the taxable situs of the property rather than the calculation of 

its value, at the very least “relat[e] to the value” because they affect the 

taxable value assigned to J-W Power. See, e.g., ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. 

v. Coleman, 512 S.W.3d 895, 900 (Tex. 2017) (interpreting “related to” 

in the TCPA context as not requiring more than a “tangential 

relationship”). 

According to the appraisal districts, only Chapter 41 protests 

contesting the calculation of the property’s appraised value “relat[e] to 

the value of the property.” Section 25.25(l) has no application at all, the 

appraisal districts argue, unless the Chapter 41 protest at issue 

“relat[ed] to the value of the property” in this way. Under this view, 

section 25.25(l) means that if a prior Chapter 41 protest challenged an 

action “relat[ed] to the value of the property,” then a section 25.25(c) 

motion raising the same complaint is not barred. But if a prior 

Chapter 41 protest was not “relat[ed] to the value of the property,” then 

that protest does operate as a bar to a later section 25.25(c) motion 

raising essentially the same complaint. The court of appeals adopted 

this view, under which J-W Power’s section 25.25(c) motions challenging 
13 

taxable situs in Sterling and Irion Counties are barred by prior, 

unsuccessful Chapter 41 protests raising the same complaint, which 

does not “relat[e] to the value of the property.” See 684 S.W.3d at 486–

87; 684 S.W.3d at 495. 

The consequence of the position taken by the appraisal districts 

and the court of appeals is that the viability of J-W Power’s 

section 25.25(c) motions comes down to whether its earlier Chapter 41 

protests “relat[ed] to the value of the property.” But in our view, that is 

exactly what subsection (l) prohibits. Subsection (l) instructs that “[a] 

motion may be filed under Subsection (c) regardless of whether . . . the 

owner of the property protested under Chapter 41 an action relating to 

the value of the property.” TEX. TAX CODE § 25.25(l) (emphasis added). 

 “Regardless of” commonly means “without taking into account.”3 

We see no indication in the statute that “regardless of whether” should 

not be given its natural meaning, which is both capacious and 

categorical. The Legislature has instructed that a section 25.25(c) 

motion may be filed “regardless of whether”—i.e., without taking into 

account whether—the owner previously filed a Chapter 41 protest 

“relat[ed] to the value of the property.” The appraisal districts’ 

understanding of section 25.25(l) cannot be right because it requires us 

to take into account—indeed, to place dispositive weight upon—whether 

3 See Regardless of, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/regardless%20of (last visited May 31, 2024). The 

Cambridge Dictionary similarly defines “regardless of” as “without being 

influenced by any other events or conditions.” Regardless of, CAMBRIDGE 

DICTIONARY, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/regardless

-of (last visited May 31, 2024). 
14 

or not J-W Power’s prior Chapter 41 protests “relat[ed] to the value of 

the property.” This we cannot do while also obeying section 25.25(l). 

As we read subsection (l), if the taxpayer’s earlier Chapter 41 

protest related to the value of the property, it can still bring a 

section 25.25(c) motion. And likewise, if the taxpayer’s earlier 

Chapter 41 protest did not relate to the value of the property, it can still 

bring a section 25.25(c) motion. Or, if the taxpayer filed no Chapter 41 

protest at all—once again—it can still bring a section 25.25(c) motion. 

By guaranteeing a property owner’s ability to file a section 25.25(c) 

motion “regardless of whether” there was also a Chapter 41 protest 

relating to the property’s value, the statute prohibits any consideration 

of the existence or contents of a prior Chapter 41 protest when a 

property owner’s ability to make use of section 25.25(c) is called into 

question. 

The appraisal districts worry that adopting our interpretation of 

section 25.25(l) will give rise to duplicative and wasteful litigation. Of 

course, we “respect policy-laden statutes as written and give wide 

leeway to the innumerable trade-offs reflected therein.” Miles v. Tex. 

Cent. R.R. & Infrastructure, Inc., 647 S.W.3d 613, 628–29 (Tex. 2022) 

(quoting Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433, 462 

(Tex. 2009)). We note also the unusual posture of this case, in which the 

law—or at least many people’s understanding of the law in light of EXLP 

Leasing—underwent a change between J-W Power’s unsuccessful 

Chapter 41 protests and its pending section 25.25(c) motions. The 

motions at issue here are not a vexatious effort to relitigate old issues. 

They are instead a colorable attempt to bring the appraisal districts into 
15 

compliance with the law, as amended by the Legislature in 2011 and 

interpreted by this Court in 2018. 

The appraisal districts nevertheless express concern that an 

expansive interpretation of section 25.25(l) will enable wasteful 

litigation in future cases. Yet in most instances, parties will have little 

reason to suspect that a later section 25.25(c) motion will yield a better 

outcome than a previous, unsuccessful Chapter 41 protest. Absent a 

change in the law, a party that has definitively lost a Chapter 41 protest 

will normally have scant reason to spend its time and money relitigating 

the same issue using a section 25.25(c) motion. The ARB, and in some 

cases the district court, will have already determined the issue, and 

there will normally be no reason to think the outcome will change the 

second time around. 

Nevertheless, in cases where a demand for correction of the 

appraisal rolls remains viable despite a prior, unsuccessful Chapter 41 

protest on the same topic, the Legislature has expressed its preference 

that section 25.25(c) remain available to taxpayers. Section 25.25(c) is 

not without its own limits, of course. It contains a five-year statute of 

limitations, and it applies only to certain kinds of corrections to the 

appraisal rolls. TEX. TAX CODE § 25.25(c). But for situations to which 

section 25.25(c) applies, the Legislature has, by enacting 

section 25.25(l), given greater priority to the taxpayers’ interest in 

accurate appraisal records than to the appraisal district’s interest in 

avoiding potentially duplicative proceedings. We see nothing surprising 

about the Legislature’s decision to strike the balance in this way, but 

even if we did, our job would be to apply the statute as written. 
16 

IV. 

In deciding that J-W Power’s section 25.25(c) motions may 

proceed, we express no view of their ultimate merits. The appraisal 

districts raised several other arguments in their motions for summary 

judgment. The court of appeals affirmed the grants of summary 

judgment solely on res judicata grounds. We therefore reverse its 

judgments and remand the cases to the court of appeals for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

 

 James D. Blacklock 

 Justice 

OPINION DELIVERED: June 7, 2024